I think that what various people's views on this thread are not that far apart. Most people accept that more research needs to be done which pretty much gives a consistent starting point for most of the posters.
I think that where there are different views is in what one does in the meantime. Some seem more disposed to believe the line that the research that has been done to date supports giving MMR therefore that's what I will do for my children. Others think that the research done to date does not and therefore they will look at some alternative.
So what is happening is that people are overlaying on the research their own risk analysis. Personal risk evaluation is a hugely subjective area, and will be a mixture of our past experience, our beliefs, our independence of thought etc etc.
Hence it will be nearly impossible for one person to even articulte all the factors implicit int their risk evaluation never mind try to convince someone else of it. Because the other person will not share the same past experiences or beliefs or independence of thought exactly. This is why the MMR debate gets so heated. Each side cannot see why the other side does not 'get it' - i.e. why do they not see what I see or think what I think!
The one thing that I think is interesting is that as far as this thread goes - no one appears to be talking of not vaccinating at all, except where there are known, and well evaluated, risk factors. What the debate here seems to be about is singles vs MMR.
What my worry about this situation is, is that some parents cannot afford to go down the singles route and is it fair therefore that I had a choice, because I can afford it, but they do not. Their choice is by far the hardest one - to vaccinate or not and believe me I would not have wanted to be in that position!
Whatever decision they arrive at I am sure it will not have been taken lightly - it may not have been your choice because they do not share your risk analysis, but it will have been a difficult choice to make!